Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Fort Henry

The following discussion is preserved as an

archive

. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Fort Henry

This article (and that for the Battle of Fort Donelson) is a model for what Wikipedia should do. It is comprehensive but not tedious, with good writing style. It is supported by useful maps (generated by the author). It meets all criteria. And no, I have had absolutely nothing to do with its creation or editing. (For persons unfamiliar with the American Civil War, the Battles of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson are often considered together. To my eye, the two articles are equal in quality, and that is why I am putting both forth at the same time.) PKKloeppel (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with some comments -

• I think the first instance of Brigadier General should be spelled completely out with the abbreviation in parenthesis, and the rest abbreviated.
• In my opinion, the footnotes are too spread apart, although they do hit upon each paragraph. The problem is that when someone adds information that isn't from that source in one of the paragraphs, then that information is no longer covered (or it might be justified by the footnote, which actually has nothing to do with that piece of information). So, I'd suggest contacting the author and perhaps adding some density to those footnotes to avoid those kinds of problems in the future.
• The maps, as images, will have to comply with MoS guidelines and will probably need to be smaller. They can always be clicked on and expanded if someone wants to get a closer look, but for some resolutions those images are too large. This was an issue I had with some of my articles when I went through the FAC process.

Nevertheless, a well-written and interesting article. Thank you for providing those maps! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• I've fixed the map sizes per
  WP:IMAGE
  . The thumb size is picked up from the size set in individual user preferences.
• also added a missing convert template.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support. Overall it seems to meet the criteria, but I would appreciate it if you fixed the issues I've pointed out below. If you do, I'll fully support it.

• I agree that Brigadier General, Major General, and all other military ranks should be spelled out, it looks more professional.
• Otherwise, my main issue is the citation. It would be much, much better if instead of a citation at the end of each paragraph listing several sources and page numbers, each of these was a separate inline citation in the paragraph.
• I believe per MOS that References should come after notes?

Besides those it looks good. Fix them, and I'll fully support it.